Utah Transportation Commission
March 11, 2005
St. George, Utah

The regular meeting of the Utah Transportation Commission, held in the St. George City Council Chambers, 175 East 200 North, St. George, Utah, was called to order at 9:06 a.m. by Commission Chairman Glen E. Brown. He introduced the Commissioners and welcomed those attending. Commissioner Bodily was excused from today’s meeting.

Approval of Minutes
Commissioner Warnick moved to approve the minutes of the February 18, 2005, Commission meeting held in Salt Lake City, Utah. Commissioner Lewis seconded the motion and the minutes were approved.

Public Comments
Chairman Brown turned the time over to Commissioner Lewis for the local area presentation and public comments portion of the agenda. Comissioner Lewis introduced the local elected officials attending. Dal Hawks, Region Four Director, and Scott Munson, Cedar City District Engineer, gave a powerpoint presentation and discussed the following: the St. George Boulevard pavement rebuild project; Big Water Town’s right-of-way concerns; the recent flooding in St. George and concerns about possible flooding in the future; the SR-10 Corridor Study; the progress of the Southern Corridor and Atkinville Interchange; the Monument Valley groundbreaking; SR-18; the new interchange at Exit 13; and various projects on I-15 between the Utah/Arizona state line and the Juab County line.

Leon Bowler from Enterprise discussed SR-18 and the amount of traffic on that road. He said that SR-56 out of Cedar City is a nice four-lane highway that doesn’t have near the traffic that SR-18 has. The portion of SR-18 coming out of Enterprise is very narrow and there is a six-mile double yellow line with a 6% grade. With more than 5,000 trucks a year traveling over that hill, some of those trucks get down to 5 mph at times, creating a dangerous situation. Add to that a lot of commuter traffic from Pine Valley and Central, it becomes even more dangerous, especially in the mornings and afternoons. Mr. Bowler said he’s angry about the current ‘shoestring’ passing lane project on SR-18. It ends several hundred feet short of where it should have ended, right at the bottom of a hill, creating a traffic hazard. The passing lane needs to be extended to the top of the summit so trucks can keep moving. Otherwise, there will be lots of accidents because the passing lane ends at the bottom of the hill. He’s also concerned about the number of accesses that UDOT has allowed on SR-18. Cars slow down and stop to make a turn off of SR-18 and somebody behind them has to slam on their brakes to keep from hitting them.

Mr. Hawks said he agrees with a lot of the comments made about the struggles they are experiencing along that corridor. The passing lane project is being done using the Department’s efficiency money. Unfortunately, there wasn’t enough money to take the project as far as they would have liked. However, they will be looking for opportunities to use maintenance betterment money and other funding categories to possibly extend the passing lane on up the hill. UDOT and St. George City have partnered on a planning study to look at SR-18 from the I-15 interchange to the Diamond Valley area or beyond, so they are trying to address the problems along SR-18.

Jay Ence, Washington County Commissioner, thanked UDOT for their help during the recent flooding. It’s important to work together the way they have. He also appreciates the work being done on SR-18. Commissioner Ence asked about Old Highway 91 and asked who owned it. The county is doing the maintenance on it, but he didn’t think it was deeded to the county. John Njord, Executive Director, said the jurisdiction for maintenance is obviously with the county, but the ownerships out there could be a hodgepodge. There may actually be pieces of the highway that are owned by private property owners, which is not uncommon around the state. It’s the same for frontage roads and interstates. There may be private property owners, it could be the BLM, it could be the county, or it could be the state.

Jim Allen, Cedar City Manager, commented about the remarks made earlier about SR-56. He said that in order for Cedar City to be competitive in economic development, they have to have the infrastructure. With SR-56 now completed, they were able to recently compete against three other states for a company that would have provided a facility worth $50 million, nearly 1000 jobs, and almost 5,000 trucks per day on SR-56. Unfortunately, their power needs were greater than what Cedar City could bring in, but at least they were able to compete because of the infrastructure. Mr. Allen said the reason he’s here today is to talk about the south interchange. There’s considerable growth in Cedar City right now, and there’s tremendous growth around the south interchange, both on the Providence side as well as the east side. In the next two years, they will have over 400,000 square feet of new retail space. In addition to that, they are talking with a group from Provo that has about $20 million to invest in a golf community with 3,500 new housing units, which would be on SITLA land above the Walmart. There’s a serious need to get the south interchange on the STIP, so that within five years, some improvements could be made to that interchange. Cedar City is doing their part, having committed to do the Cross Hollows road, a $5 million project, and committing $700,000 to do an EIS, which should be completed this year and includes the south interchange. He asked what Cedar City needed to do to get the south interchange on the STIP.

Mr. Hawks told the Commission that UDOT has entered into an agreement with the Cedar City to do a planning study for the south interchange to identify exactly what type of a project would be requested for the STIP. They want to better understand what is possible there and what the scope would be. The region isn’t in a position to make a determination until that planning study is completed.

Tony Randall, Enterprise City Administrator, said the 5,000 number that was mentioned earlier in regards to the number of trucks on SR-18 does not include all of the concrete trucks, Associated Foods trucks, or independent trucks who use that corridor. It’s a very conservative number. And even though they are still small, rural Utah, they value lives and believe their people are being put into harms way the way the road is situated. Mr. Randall noted that the Civics class at Enterprise High School collected 172 signatures from townspeople, hoping that the widening of SR-18 to the top of Cottonwood Canyon will be put on the radar screen. Any work being done on SR-18 is a benefit to Enterprise, and they appreciate what has been done so far.

Brian Bremner, Garfield County Engineer complimented UDOT and the Commission on their efforts to increase partnering between local governments and the state. Just don’t stop there. Keep moving forward. With that, he has four items to mention in that regard. First is the system as a whole. He thinks there’s a feeling of division among highway authorities over money. When they come together and truly partner, there are efforts and benefits to both UDOT and the local governments. The Non-urban Committee has recently submitted a proposal to Commissioner Wilson in that regard. The needs that are facing the state are so great, if they do exactly the same things they’ve always done, then they’re going to get exactly the same results. They need to do business a little differently. Mr. Bremner said the second item has to do with a discussion he had with a Legislative Analyst who described transportation problems in rural Utah as ‘crumbs off the king’s table.’ Rural Utah’s problems, compared to the Wasatch Front, are like crumbs off a king’s table, but they need those crumbs. More than that, they need flexibility on how they are allowed to gather those ‘crumbs’ and use them, and the opportunity to do things just a little differently. The third item is legislation. Transportation has become an increasingly hot issue in the legislature, so the local governments and UDOT need to be proactive when going to the Task Forces and the Legislature with proposals on how to solve problems, as opposed to receiving legislation and being reactive. The final item has to do with flooding. He said UDOT has a 36-inch culvert in Panguitch that has never had any water in it except over the Christmas holidays. However, it is aimed right at the sliding glass doors of a home that is not too far away from that culvert. There hasn’t been a problem in the past, but this year it will be a problem. Something needs to be done before the thaw hits.

Earl Gibson, representing Enoch City, said the city council and the mayor have asked him to approach the Commission and propose an interchange at mile marker 66, which is half way between Summit and Cedar City. Enoch is a bedroom community north of Cedar City and they are growing. The problem they have is with SR 130 and old Highway 91, the routes used to get into Cedar City. Bottlenecking occurs at the north interchange, Exit 62, which creates traffic problems and safety issues. It’s a growing problem they need to plan for in the future so when they do have 10,000 to 20,000 people, they’re not all trying to get to Cedar City from the same bottlenecked area. They would like to have UDOT’s planners sit down with them and see what they need to do with their planning to be prepared for this eventuality. There’s a company that will be putting in a health awareness complex about ½ mile south of the area he’s talking about that will include a 260 bed dormitory for overweight students, and it’s going to bring a lot more traffic into this area. There are also plans for a new high school and elementary School. The high school will change traffic patterns on SR 130. Commissioner Clyde noted that there is enormous economic value in a new interchange and the city needs to look very carefully at what developers are willing to contribute. Mr. Gibson said that is one of the things that will be on the city council’s agenda, and something they will require.

Gary McKell, LaVerkin City Council, said the new bridge between Hurricane and LaVerkin is a real good asset to their community. Mr. Munson and his crew in Cedar City have been very good to work with and he appreciates the working relationship they have. Now that they have a 45 mph speed limit on the four-lane highway going right through the middle of town, their concerns are for the safety of their school children. As LaVerkin continues to grow, they’ll have a majority of children coming from the west side who will be crossing that road. And the tourist season brings a lot of traffic through the middle of town as well. They will need to deal with that safety issue in the very near future.

Commissioner Lewis turned the time back over to Chairman Brown.

SB 11 – Proposed Administrative Rule
Mr. Allen from Cedar City said he’s trying to understand what the language means in the proposed rule, particularly on page 4, line 74, where it says, “If a proposed improvement is to a surface street that approaches an interchange or ramp or for a new interchange or ramp and is being undertaken for economic development, the county or municipality shall provide at least a fifty percent local match.” What is the intent when it says ‘surface street?’ Max Ditlevsen, Program Finance Director, said that is something they’ll have to spend some time to define. Mr. Allen said if that includes SR 56 and the city having to participate 50% in that project, it would have meant $6 million coming from Cedar City, which would have been a huge undertaking. And, there’s going to be more circumstances where it could be a killer to the ability of a community to have economic development. He also wondered if this included residential development. If residential is excluded, that could be a problem as well. And, according to Senator Greg Bell, economic development is only industry; it doesn’t include retail. Mr. Allen said there needs to be a lot more clarification before anybody buys into this. Chairman Brown said this is obviously going to be very complex. The Commission was directed by SB 11 to bring forth these rules, and they’re doing their best to interpret what the bill intended. These hearings are critical and these questions are very legitimate. At some point, the questions will have to be answered. Mr. Allen added that when getting into these kinds of dynamics, there is a Wasatch Front and a rural Utah. And a lot of times, they’re trying to solve problems on the Wasatch Front that are not germane to rural Utah. He feels this could be bad for rural Utah.

Chairman Brown said he believes the intent of this process is for those projects that come by way of economic development opportunities that may arise for a particular municipality or county, for which there is no project on the STIP. It’s more for a project that comes out of the blue to the Department and the Commission, and there needs to be a process whereby UDOT can partner with local governments to try and accomplish it once things are in place. He believes that is the intent of what this process is trying to do. He doesn’t think there’s any intention on the part of the Legislature, the Commission, or UDOT, to try and make it any more difficult for rural areas than for urban areas. If a developer is requesting a new interchange, regardless of where it is in the state system, they ought to be willing to pay the same amount, whether it’s in the northern part of the state, the southern part of the state, or wherever, if there’s a like opportunity. Commissioner Warnick mentioned the Enoch interchange as one they would look at closely under this rule with the 50% contribution.

Mr. Bremner from Garfield County said he gave a marked up copy of the proposed rule to the Commission Secretary and to Max Ditlevsen. There are about four items he would like to address. The first one is on page 2, line 34, where it says, “Federal formula funds normally programmed by local entities….” He said they get lots of federal formula funds that they program; he thinks that means federal formula highway funds, which they don’t get in their general budgets. The word ‘highway’ should be inserted there so they don’t get trapped into doing other things. The next item is on lines 38 and 39, where it says, “Private sources or contributions may be considered part of local matching dollars if they pass through the local government.” He’s wondering why they ‘may’ only do that. He would like to see the word “shall” instead of “may,” so as to be less restrictive on the requirements that funds have to pass through the local governments. There are a lot of options out there that they may not be able to foresee.

Commissioner Wells commented that the key to this particular part, from what she understands, is the fact that these initiatives come from the local governments. It would be very simple to do an interlocal agreement to pass on whatever has to happen from that perspective. They need to be government contributions because they are local projects. UDOT doesn’t want to be the middleman. Commissioner Warnick said it would be silly for a developer to deed a piece of land to the city that needed to be deeded to the state. It should just be deeded directly to the state. Mr. Bremner said the third item is on lines 40 and 41, which says, “Upon receiving the partnering proposal, the Transportation Commission will be notified in a forthcoming public meeting.” That’s important, but he hopes that’s an informal notification. Chairman Brown said the intention there is that the Commission Secretary would receive notification and would note it for the next Commission meeting, so the Commission would be on notice that there had been a request. Mr. Bremner said the final item is on page 3, lines 50 through 52, where it says, “The Department shall notify the county or municipality of the date, time, and location of the Transportation Commission meeting that will hear the proposal. The Department shall provide the county or municipality with at least 30 days written notice.” He would change ’30 days written notice’ to ‘reasonable notice.’ Many times, those developments are a bit time sensitive, especially if timing them with when Commission meetings are held.

Planning and Programming
Adjustment of Safety Funds in Region Two
Mr. Ditlevsen said this is a request from Region Two in Salt Lake. Three Safety Spot Improvement projects on I-80 have been identified where work has been or will be accomplished with other existing projects, so they can be eliminated from the program. There are two other locations along I-80 where improvements could really make a dramatic impact on traffic. Those locations are at 2300 East and at the I-215 northbound to I-80 eastbound collector ramp. Both locations are quite dangerous, and are good locations for safety improvements. Additional funding of $500,000 is also needed, which would come from STP-Safety Any Area/Hazard Elimination funds. The action needed today, if the Commission agrees, would be to send this to the WFRC to adjust their TIP to include these two new projects. There would also be a joint public comment period. The projects would then come back to the Commission for actual adoption into the STIP. Mr. Ditlevsen also mentioned that the handout that was distributed is a list of the appropriation earmarks for FY 05 that was never actually put out for public comment. They want to pair this list with the other two projects and let them go out for public comment. They still don’t have the money yet, but felt that the combined public comment period would be appropriate. The motion would include those earmarks as well.

Commissioner Warnick made a motion to put the FY 2005 Appropriations Summary projects and the Safety Spot Improvement projects out for public comment, and to send them to the WFRC as well. Commissioner Lewis seconded it and the motion was approved.

Administrative Amendment for Emergency Relief Funds for St. George
Mr. Ditlevesen said they have previously talked about these projects that are emergency relief for the flood damage that happened in Washington and Iron Counties. The list of projects was developed through the assessment process. This is just to make a STIP adjustment and to bring them into the program; it’s an administrative action to make sure they’re on the STIP.

Commissioner Clyde moved to approve the Administrative Amendment for Emergency Relief funds for St. George. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lewis and approved.

WFRC Amendment
Mr. Ditlevsen said these are funding adjustments to two local government projects in the Wasatch Front area. One is on 3200 West in Salt Lake, the other is on Riverdale Road in Riverdale. It’s an increase in Urban STP funds, and needs to be adopted into the STIP as a funding adjustment. WFRC took action in their February meeting.

Commissioner Warnick moved to approve the STIP/TIP adjustment as discussed. It was seconded by Commissioner Clyde and approved.

SR-128; Bridge Near Moab
Mr. Ditlevsen said this request is from Region Four for a bridge on SR-128 north of Moab. It’s the second time the project has been advertised. No bids were received the first time. Only one bid was received the second time, and that bid exceeded the Commission approved amount significantly. So, they are asking for $250,000 to be added to the project. There may be an opportunity to negotiate some downward adjustments in the overall costs. By taking this action today, it will allow the project to be awarded and move forward, and will allow negotiations to take place. The source for the additional funds would come from the bridge replacement and rehabilitation funds – federal money. Carlos Braceras, Deputy Director, said the Department is experiencing some challenges with bidding in the Moab area. The Moab Main Street project went out for bid and only one bid came in and it was significantly higher than the engineer’s estimate. They’re having a difficult time generating the competition necessary to realize the type of processes that have been experienced elsewhere around the state. Commissioner Clyde remarked that the construction company and the construction industry should be aware of their responsibility of being sure the bidding practice takes place in the proper way. Mr. Braceras said they have had discussions with the AGC and expressed their concerns to them.

Commissioner Wilson moved to approve the request for an additional $250,000 for the bridge project on SR-128 north of Moab. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Clyde and approved.

A short break was called at 11:25 a.m.

Provo Canyon Change Order for Slope Stabilization
Tracy Conti, Region Three Director, explained that he has come to the Commission today to ask for approval to execute a change order and start negotiating with the contractor on the Provo Canyon project for slope stabilization. The east cut above the dam is covered with soil, not rock as they anticipated, so the contractor needs UDOT to give them a decision on what to do there. The cost could be as much as $1.4 million to shotcrete the whole wall; however, they do anticipate hitting some rocks, and netting would work at those locations. Mr. Conti said he’s not asking for a specific amount of money today; he would like to take care of it in the normal STIP process and recommend additional money for Provo Canyon when they know exactly what the cost will be. Commissioner Clyde said he made a visit to the construction site and he feels the problem needs to be addressed now while the area is easily accessible to the contractor or else they’re going to encounter a lot more problems that will need to be resolved.

Director Njord said the Department has hundreds of construction projects across the state and are working on them continuously. What they have encountered here is something called a change of conditions, which is not unusual, and the Department typically executes a change order and goes on with the work. The reason they’re here today is because they think, at the end of the project, the costs are going to be somewhat more. The worst case scenario, as Mr. Conti mentioned, is $1.4 million, but it might be less, depending on what the conditions actually are. This is a large enough change in condition that it requires the Commission’s approval. It’s important they don’t hold up the contractor, and allow them to continue on with the work. Commissioner Warnick asked how the cost overrun would be funded. Mr. Conti said it would be NHS money. Mr. Ditlvesen added that most of the money that has been added to this project has been National Highway System federal funds. In looking at the increase from 04 appropriations to 05 appropriations, there’s enough room in this category – they’re seeing a slight increase in those funds. Obviously, that’s contingent on where reauthorization actually ends up. They should have a little more information in April. Commissioner Lewis said he concurs with Commissioner Clyde’s comments in regards to the necessity of doing this and the reasons for it. Chairman Brown asked for a update on the progress of this project in a future meeting.

Commissioner Clyde moved to instruct the Department to go ahead and negotiate a change order to cover the change in conditions on the Provo Canyon project, authorizing the work to proceed and the negotiation of a change order. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Warnick and approved.

Programming of One-Time Funds
Director Njord said that during this last legislative session, the Legislature had transportation square in their sights, and had some healthy discussions about it. In the end, they provided $90 million of ongoing funds to be contributed towards the Centennial Highway Fund (CHF), enabling the Department to not have to borrow money this year to continue projects in that program. It bodes well for completing all of the projects that are currently within the CHF. In addition to the $90 million, the Legislature appropriated a one-time amount of $30 million, which was appropriated to the CHF. Director Njord said the Commission has been given a copy of a faxed letter from President Valentine and Speaker Curtis, indicating it was their understanding that the Transportation Commission would use their processes to prioritize the $30 million to a project within the state. The Department has come today to provide some information about projects that could be considered, and to give a recommendation of how the Commission might want to spend the $30 million. Mr. Braceras added that there is an additional $12 million of returned Olympic funds that needs to be allocated as well, which will be combined with the $30 million. So, the total amount they’re talking about today is $42 million that could go towards a project.

Ahmad Jaber, Program Development Director, distributed a handout and said that it shows the four most congested areas on the interstate. The first project is on I-15 in Weber County from 30th Street to 12th Street. The second project is on I-15 in Davis County from I-215 to the SR-89 junction in Farmington. The third project is on I-80 in Salt Lake City from I-15 to 1300 East, and the fourth project is on I-15 in Utah County, from SR-92 to University Parkway. Mr. Jaber discussed details of the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for each of the segments, as well as hourly traffic volumes. He mentioned that the project on I-15 in Weber County was currently funded in the CHF for $180 million, and construction should start in 2006. The congestion on I-15 in Davis County will be mitigated by the Legacy Parkway, and the I-80 project from I-15 to 1300 East is currently funded with Centennial Highway funds and will be advertised in November of 2007. Based on that information, the recommendation this morning is to fund the I-15 project in Utah County with the $42 million. The action needed today would be to send that project out for public comment.

Commissioner Warnick asked what process was used to narrow it down to these four projects. Mr. Jaber replied that one of the first things they looked at were the areas with the most congestion. They felt that the highest traffic volume and the most benefit would come from improvements on the interstate system, compared to other segments of highways. Commissioner Wells asked if the lane being added on the Utah County project would be an HOV lane. Mr. Braceras said it would be an HOV lane. Director Njord commented that this project they are recommending has been a long time in coming. It started with Governor Walker, and moved on to Governor Huntsman. And when the money was placed in Governor Huntsman’s budget, UDOT’s staff started working on where that money ought to be spent, where they’d get the largest bang for the buck. They have believed for some time that a project of this magnitude in Utah County would be a great benefit to a lot of people. And, in the relative scale of improving interstates, $40+ million is not a lot of money, but they get a large impact as a result. Commissioner Wells said she knows this is a short-term fix. How much time will the additional lane buy in the process? Mr. Braceras answered that this will buy between five to seven years of capacity relief. With the growth rates they are seeing today, it will be close to the 2011 time frame when this reaches the point of having to have a significant fix. One of the benefits of this project is that when the full rebuild of I-15 in Utah County is done, it will help to provide two lanes in each direction during that reconstruction. There’s not enough width today to be able to provide those four lanes.

Commissioner Warnick mentioned that because of past funding issues, a lot of CHF projects have been delayed. Would leaving the $30 million in the CHF help get some of those projects completed before moving on to other projects? Director Njord said that when the Department went to the Legislature with the CHF list, they gave them an accelerated schedule, since projects were delayed last year. This year, those projects will be back on schedule or accelerated. The schedule for CHF projects is as accelerated as they can possibly make it, given the $90 million in ongoing funds. If that $30 million were to be left in the CHF, nothing would happen any faster than it’s already going to happen. Joe Brown from the Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget remarked that Governor Huntsman is very supportive of moving ahead with allocating this money as the Commission sees fit, and will be working with Legislative leadership to hopefully get this money to the Commission as soon as possible. Chairman Brown said this issue has been looked at carefully and they have spent a lot of time in considering this, even though it may be viewed by some that the Commission hasn’t spent much time on this. He also suggested that there be some kind of formal communication with the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House letting them know that the Commission appreciates their support and cooperation, and is working to see that this is done expeditiously.

Commissioner Clyde made a motion to move the I-15 project from SR-92 to University Parkway in Utah County forward and to put it out for public comment, with the understanding that $12 million of returned Olympic Funds would be combined with the $30 million in the CHF for this project. It was seconded by Commissioner Wells, and approved.

Request for use of Corridor Preservation Funds
CP Property – Mountain View Corridor
Lyle McMillan, Director of Right of Way, said there is only one request today. It is a request from a consortium of property owners on the Mountain View corridor. Four property owners assembled their parcels and sold it Alpine Homes. West Jordan City identified that a portion of this property was within the Mountain View corridor. In this part of the corridor, there is only one alternative, besides the no build alternative, and of the 34 acres that comprise this assembled parcel, twelve acres are in the corridor. The price per acre is $100,000, and UDOT has independently confirmed that. In order to prevent imminent development, the Advisory Council is recommending that the Transportation Commission appropriate approximately $1.2 million to purchase the needed property. This is in phase two of the corridor, which is 10 to 20 years out. Commissioner Wells added that this action would prevent UDOT from having to buy many, many homes in the future. And this property is being purchased through the developer rather than the four individuals. Additional discussion focused on the purchasing process, the property owners, and the cost of the property.

Commissioner Wells made a motion to approve the purchase of the property with Corridor Preservation Funds. It was seconded by Commissioner Clyde and approved.

Legislative Update
Linda Hull, Director of Legislative and Government Affairs, distributed a handout of the passed and failed bills that UDOT tracked during this year’s Legislative session. She briefly discussed SB 8, Local Corridor Preservation Funding, and SB 25, Transportation Amendments and Highway Jurisdictional Transfer Task Force.

Informational Items
West Jordan Maintenance Station Property Exchange
Dave Miles, Operations Engineer, said this is only an information item today. Next month, they’ll bring back a resolution and ask for approval. He explained that periodically, UDOT gets requests from private developers to purchase or trade properties for their maintenance stations, because development grows around the stations and the property becomes very valuable. Such is the case with the West Jordan station, located at 3800 West on 7800 South, where Jordan Landing has been developing. And in a few years, they will be developing right around that maintenanc e station. The Jordan Landing developers have approached UDOT and would like to exchange property and build UDOT a new station. The reason this is being brought to the Commission is because the Legislature made a change in the code that enables this to be done without having to get full legislative approval. Now, the Department makes the decision and is only required to have the Commission approve it. Then, the Speaker, the President, and Capitol Facilities just have to be informed about it.

Mr. Miles said the current location consists of 5.15 acres; the new location is 5.23 acres. The new location is about one mile west of the old location and still fronts 7800 South. The property values, which came from appraisals done two years ago, was $1.5 million for the current location, and for the new location, plus the cost to construct a new station, it totaled approximately $2.8 million. Legislative intent was that the value needed to be at least equal in the exchange, and this meets that requirement, with plenty left over. Commissioner Wells asked about zoning in the new area and whether or not there would be other development occurring that would cause the station to be moved again. Mr. Miles said the area is zoned as commercial or light industrial. Located to the north is a National Guard facility, to the east is Salt Lake Airport #2, and to the west is a spur railroad line. It looks like a good location because of the other zoning. Director Njord commented that if this property gets into a situation where somebody wants to acquire it, it would be the same deal – build a new shed and they’ll move. Commissioner Warnick asked if the values on the proposed site came from the developer. Mr. McMillan stated that one of the key characteristics of this type of transaction is that no money comes out of UDOT’s hands. Everything has been paid for by the developer. UDOT chose the appraiser and sent the bill to the developer.

Commissioner Wilson asked about access into the new location and if a turn lane was required to accommodate UDOT traffic on and off that road. Mr. Miles said they have the necessary access, but he’d have to see the plans. He’s not sure about a left turn lane, but it would probably be a good idea to at least have the road widened out for the trucks to use a right turn lane. Commissioner Wilson said that’s one of the big problems on Price’s south corridor. It’s a two-lane road with all kinds of access problems with vehicles turning onto and off of the corridor.

WASHTO 2005 – Omaha
The WASHTO 2005 conference in Omaha on July 10-30, 2005, was discussed. The Commissioners were asked if they were interested in attending. Commissioner Wells said she would like to attend, and Commissioner Lewis said he was thinking about it and would make a decision soon.

Commission Committee Reports
Commissioner Wells gave a brief report on her UTA assignment, and Commissioner Warnick said the Ropeway Committee would be meeting next week.

Transportation Commission Meetings
The Commission discussed the dates and locations of future Commission meetings. Chairman Brown said he would not be able to attend the May 20, 2005, Commission meeting due to other commitments. The next Transportation Commission meeting will be held on Friday, April 22, 2005, at the UDOT Rampton Complex in Salt Lake City. The following dates and locations were also scheduled:

• May 20, 2005 – Nephi
  
• June 17, 2005 – Roosevelt
  
• July 19, 2005 – Rich County
  
• August 19, 2005 – Cedar City

The following Commissioners, staff members and others were in attendance:
Glen E. Brown, Chairman
Hal M. Clyde, Commissioner
Jan C. Wells, Commissioner
Bevan K. Wilson, Commissioner
Ken Warnick, Commissioner
Jerry B. Lewis, Commissioner
LeAnn G. Abegglen, Commission Secretary
John Njord, Executive Director
Carlos M. Braceras, Deputy Director
Jim McMinimee, Project Development Director
David K. Miles, Engineer for Operations
Ahmad Jaber, Program Development Director
Max J. Ditlevsen, Program Financing Director
Linda Hull, Director of Legislative and Government Affairs
Lyle McMillan, Director of Right of Way
Pat Morley, Director of Aeronautics
John Quick, Program Development
Brent Wilhite, Communications Office
Tracy Conti, Region Three Director
Dal Hawks, Region Four Director
Scott Munson, Cedar City District Engineer
Myron Lee, Region Four
Clayton Wilson, Region Four
Frank Long, FHWA
Joe Brown, GOPB
Darrell Cook, MAG
Doug Hattery, WFRC
Lowell Elmer, DMPO
Jay Ence, Washington County Commission
Brian Bremner, Garfield County Engineer
Jim Allen, Cedar City
Earl Gibson, Enoch City
David Browning, Enoch City
Tony Randall, Enterprise City
Leon Bowler, Enterprise
George E. Elwell, Jr., Ivins City Council
Phil Jensen, LaVerkin City Council
Gary McKell, LaVerkin City Council
Doug Gubler, LaVerkin City
Eugene H. Mayer, Mayor of Milford City
Clint Topham, Parsons Brinckerhoff
Ron Mortimer, Horrocks Engineers
Sam Drown, Alpine Homes
Mark Harnes, Salt Lake Tribune
Katie Christensen, KCSG Television